Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Abdulhaqq v. Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California

May 28, 2014

SHAKORA ABDULHAQQ, et al., Plaintiffs,
URBAN OUTFITTERS WHOLESALE, INC., D/B/A ANTHROPOLOGIE, a Pennsylvania corporation, et al., Defendants.


JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to remand filed by Plaintiff Shakora Abdulhaqq ("Plaintiff"). The Court has considered the parties' papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and it HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to remand.


On May 21, 2013, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated, filed a complaint against Defendant Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc. d/b/a Anthropologie ("Urban Outfitters") in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Alameda. Plaintiff and the members of the putative class he seeks to represent are current and/or fomer hourly managers who work at Anthropologie stores. The complaint alleges seven causes of action for violations of California Labor Codes for unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid meal rest premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, wages not timely paid upon termination, non-complaint wage statements, and for violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.

On July 10, 2013, Urban Outfitters filed a notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 8-10.) Urban Outfitters contends that the Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), which grants federal district courts original jurisdiction over certain class action suits. ( Id. )

The Court shall address additional facts as necessary in the remainder of this Order.


A. Legal Standards Relevant to Removal Jurisdiction.

"[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant... to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending." Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust , 463 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1983) (citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is construed strictly against removal jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc. , 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). "Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Gaus , 980 F.2d at 566. In order to determine whether the removing party has met its burden, a court may consider the contents of the removal petition and "summary-judgment-type evidence." Valdez, 372 F.3d at 1117. It is well established that a court must evaluate whether it has jurisdiction based on the circumstances that exist at the time the notice of removal is filed. See, e.g., Sparta Surgical Corp. v. National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc. , 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998).

The Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") provides that district courts have original jurisdiction over any class action in which (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $5, 000, 000, (2) any plaintiff class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, (3) the primary defendants are not states, state officials, or other government entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief, and (4) the number of plaintiffs in the class is at least 100. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), (d)(5).

B. Motion to Remand.

1. Minimal Diversity.

For purposes of removal under CAFA, the parties do not dispute that the class comprises at least 100 persons. Plaintiff contends, however, that Urban Outfitters did not prove there is diversity of citizenship and, as the removing party, it carries that burden. See Kanter v. Warner-Lamber Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). However, in the declaration filed in support of its opposition papers, Urban Outfitters demonstrates that according to its January 2013 Securities and Exchange Commissions Form 10-K, the state of incorporation and location of the company's ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.